Although I dont want to see that change, I don't see why someone couldn't run a meet and score it that way just for kicks. Do all meets have to fall under state sanctioned rules? Would you have to do it as a scrimmage or pre-season meet?
Although I dont want to see that change, I don't see why someone couldn't run a meet and score it that way just for kicks. Do all meets have to fall under state sanctioned rules? Would you have to do it as a scrimmage or pre-season meet?
i like it as an idea to mix it up and generate interest. for example, flighted cross country meets (all the seventh runners race, followed by 6, 5, etc.) these meets take all day as opposed to running only 1-2 races, but it is fun. another possibility would be to run only one race, but have 2 team awards, one for traditional placing, another for the total time. also, what if there were meets where we only score 3, or meets where we score 9 or 10. i think it would be nice to see a little variety anyway. also, perhaps a coaches race (they should be banned from wearing split shorts and/or compression shorts).
Chicago..... wrote:
The first problem is that you need a clock. Real xc only needs a start and finish line and a plotted out course. No need to make it too complicated. Time means nothing anyway. Besides, does anyone really know what time it is?
One problem with cumulative time scoring is that you can't really see who is winning the meet as it is going on and need to wait until afterwards to even figure out who won. With place based scoring you can add up places throughout the race and let your athlete know that he'll need to pick up 5 places (for example) for his team to get on the podium. Of course, I don't know, does anybody really care?
Why not have all the teams video tape a time trial and submit it. No need to gather in one place or anything... Total time is a terrible idea
Because timing is unreliable compared to counting. XC has exactly the opposite weighting as total time. Specifically, a few seconds at the top often changes no places while in the middle it changes many places. It makes is much more of a team race and switching would be a fundamentally different event.
runn wrote:
6 of one or half a dozen wrote:I don't see anything wrong with that except the emphasis would be racing the clock instead of the other runners. In the big meets, there can be 30 places within a few seconds.
Most of the time it wouldn't matter anyway.
It usually doesn't matter but a few years ago I had a team that won every meet we went to but never had the fastest time. We had 7 runners finish within about 15-20 seconds of each other so were packed well but didn't have an individual "superstar".
Which brings light to another point: the point system can potentially reward a team with a fantastic #6/7, displacing scorers from other teams. Placing teams by their team times wouldn't allow that.
[quote]Obama Fan wrote:
Do we really want a mediocre team with one LeBron James who is dunking over everyone all the time? quote]
Lebron figured that out when he was 16. His team didn't win the state title his junior year because another player missed a few easy shots in the first half and Lebron passed to a senior guard for a 3 point attempt to win the game. Lebron said after the game if he just scored every time down the floor (which he basically did the second half)and his teammates weren't involved, the championship wouldn't mean anything to him. Most games during the regular season, Lebron only played hard about 12 minutes a game so his teammates could be involved and get better.
They did win the championship the other 3 years Lebron was in high school and a couple teammates played d1 in college.
What nobody has really mentioned is it is the weakest runner on the team that can have the most impact on the scoring system.
Imagine a XC team turning up for the bus and realising they are one competitor short. They see one of the cheerleaders passing and persuade them to come along and compete.
The cheerleader proceeds to walk the race waving to the supporters and finishes 10 minutes behind everybody else.
However the rest of the team have done so well that the cheerleaders score still gives the team victory.
This is an exageration of what I have seen many times.
Should this be the case? You decide.
I'm firmly in the total time camp. It is obviously the fairest way.
Most of the other reason given here for a scoring system are at best weak and some just nonsense.
If people see the current system as just a continuation of tradition then so be it.
Chicago..... wrote:
The first problem is that you need a clock. Real xc only needs a start and finish line and a plotted out course. No need to make it too complicated. Time means nothing anyway. Besides, does anyone really know what time it is?
Does anybody really care?
Wow, you're pretty good if you can add up all the other teams scores as well as your own and then calculate how many runners an individual has to pass to win the team prize.
How much time does this leave you to watch the race?
Hell, a clock. Where are we going to find one of those in the 21st century?
Novan wrote:
One difference that no one has mentioned yet is that with place scoring, 6th and 7th place runners can affect the scoring by beating another team's 5th placer and adding to the other team's score. It seems to me like place scoring favors teams with good depth or a really tight pack, while time scoring would favor teams with one really good runner and a bunch of other average runners.
I can't believe I left that out. My 6 and 7 guys routinely beat the 3rd runner from other schools.
It should based on time. It should be like a relay, run in parallel.
Obama Fan wrote:
Let's use that Basketball (or any team sport) scenario for a second...
If a team is very well-coached, determined, disciplined, fit and intelligent, they are like the Hoosiers. They are a well oiled machine with the ability to run solid plays and win the game. Think Friday Night Lights (the book/movie, not that awful television series). Isn't that what we like to watch? Isn't that what we aspire to? A team of hard working SOBs that train like animals, study the plays and finally play like gladiators to finally beat Dallas Carter?
Do we really want a mediocre team with one LeBron James who is dunking over everyone all the time? Is that good for the sport? Is that good for sport in general? If anything, I think XC is a sport that intentionally deals with outliers by rewarding teamwork and dedication THROUGHOUT the entire roster.
Total time would be a bastardization of the sport for the sake of (a weak attempt at) commercialization.
Wow … You are joking, right? Friday Night Lights is an awesome television series. The movie was decent, but certainly not on the same level as the show. You have no credibility.
You're talking about creating a completely different sport. A team race scored by total time wouldn't be bad. But it wouldn't be cross country.
i like wrote:
i like it as an idea to mix it up and generate interest. for example, flighted cross country meets (all the seventh runners race, followed by 6, 5, etc.) these meets take all day as opposed to running only 1-2 races, but it is fun. another possibility would be to run only one race, but have 2 team awards, one for traditional placing, another for the total time. also, what if there were meets where we only score 3, or meets where we score 9 or 10. i think it would be nice to see a little variety anyway. also, perhaps a coaches race (they should be banned from wearing split shorts and/or compression shorts).
This would not work with my HS team, as we were interchangeble and never knew which runner would be in which spot from 1 to 5.
Definitely not a good idea.
If it is not broken, don't fix it. Coming down to the finish, those man-to-man duels for 15th or 16th, or 56th and 57th, or whatever, knowing that one tiny win-lose situation can mean victory or defeat, is what gives Cross Country such a great mystique. Using time would ruin this.
Not only is it not a good idea, it is a terrible idea.
Time doesn't matter in cross country. End of story.
Dennis Reynolds wrote:
Time doesn't matter in cross country. End of story.
yes, while it might be fun just for kicks, I really hate the idea of a "team" winning the meet because their #1 won the meet by 5 min.
This would REALLY affect the Girls teams even more than the boys. You tend to have greater differences in abilities in the girls HS races.
i like wrote:
i like it as an idea to mix it up and generate interest. for example, flighted cross country meets (all the seventh runners race, followed by 6, 5, etc.) these meets take all day as opposed to running only 1-2 races, but it is fun. another possibility would be to run only one race, but have 2 team awards, one for traditional placing, another for the total time. also, what if there were meets where we only score 3, or meets where we score 9 or 10. i think it would be nice to see a little variety anyway. also, perhaps a coaches race (they should be banned from wearing split shorts and/or compression shorts).
Racehorse wrote:
This would not work with my HS team, as we were interchangeble and never knew which runner would be in which spot from 1 to 5.
Also, it would leave a lot of opportunity to dick with your order. If I know that no one on my team can beat your number one runner, I am going to enter my slowest guy as my number one, then I'm going to have my fastest against your number two, my number two against your number 3, and so on.
The beauty of running is in its simplicity. The race shouldn't come down to who does the best job of picking their order.